82,891
edits
Substance and form: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|devil|{{image|Vittoria|jpg|}}}}The existential dilemma — the {{tag|paradox}} — of form and substance was first adverted to in [[Otto Büchstein]]’s now largely forgotten tragicomic opera ''[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]'' (often performed, if performed at all, in German, as ''[[Die Eroberung der Form durch Substanz]]''). | ||
{{form and substance capsule}} | |||
There is a logic to this: the power of [[big data]] is their [[Emergence|emergent]] properties: you can extract, from a mass of data, qualities you can’t see from individual instances. That one kettle goes on at 4:30 in the afternoon signifies nothing in particular; that fourteen million do tells you it’s half time in the football. | |||
There is a logic to this: the power of [[big data]] is their emergent properties: you can extract from a mass of data qualities you can’t see from individual instances. That one kettle goes on at 4:30 in the afternoon signifies nothing in particular; that fourteen million do tells you it’s half time in the football. | |||
This is a [[correlation]], though, not [[causation]], and it won’t flow the other way. Just because you put the kettle on at 4:30 doesn’t mean you were watching the football, however likely it might seem. Probability is an ''is'', not an ''ought''. | This is a [[correlation]], though, not [[causation]], and it won’t flow the other way. Just because you put the kettle on at 4:30 doesn’t mean you were watching the football, however likely it might seem. Probability is an ''is'', not an ''ought''. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 8: | ||
''The [[JC]]'': you cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”. | ''The [[JC]]'': you cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”. | ||
====Some ad hoc categorisations of the “formal” and the “substantive”==== | |||
{{Tabletop}} | {{Tabletop}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 37: | Line 35: | ||
===As the culmination of 20th century rationalism === | ===As the culmination of 20th century rationalism === | ||
The ultimate expression of modernism. Le Corbusier, [[The Death and Life of Great American Cities|Robert Moses]], {{Br|Seeing | The ultimate expression of modernism. Le Corbusier, [[The Death and Life of Great American Cities|Robert Moses]], {{Br|Seeing Like a State}} and the [[modernist]] [[self-perpetuating autocracy|self-perpetuating autocracies]] of the international capital markets. | ||
[[Formal]] structure is rewarded progressively: it is axiomatic that the further up the formal hierarchy one rises, the more valuable to the organisation you are, and the better remunerated you must be. The irony is that actual revenue generation and customer interaction happens to the bottom of the hierarchy. The interactions necessary to generate product and therefore revenues necessarily cross hierarchical structures. These interactions and relationships are that necessarily informal and are not well monitored or understood by the formal structure. They will typically take place in junior and operational departments. From a formal perspective these personnel are not significant — they are too busy managing client relationships to occupy formal positions in the internal hierarchy — and are therefore usually the first candidates for [[Juniorisation|juniorising]] and offshoring. | [[Formal]] structure is rewarded progressively: it is axiomatic that the further up the formal hierarchy one rises, the more valuable to the organisation you are, and the better remunerated you must be. The irony is that actual revenue generation and customer interaction happens to the bottom of the hierarchy. The interactions necessary to generate product and therefore revenues necessarily cross hierarchical structures. These interactions and relationships are that necessarily informal and are not well monitored or understood by the formal structure. They will typically take place in junior and operational departments. From a formal perspective these personnel are not significant — they are too busy managing client relationships to occupy formal positions in the internal hierarchy — and are therefore usually the first candidates for [[Juniorisation|juniorising]] and offshoring. | ||
| Line 51: | Line 49: | ||
Dennett’s functionalism defining away the need for subjectivity. | Dennett’s functionalism defining away the need for subjectivity. | ||
At the heart of all science including evolution there is a fundamental turtles | At the heart of all science, including evolution, there is a fundamental [[elephants and turtles]] problem: You are forced into an ''[[a priori]]'' [[conjuring trick]] to get them started. | ||
Bitcoin as the point where are form triumphs and substance is completely eradicated. | Bitcoin as the point where are form triumphs and substance is completely eradicated. | ||
Cross-cutting political risk towards the subjectivation of everything and the “century of the self” | Cross-cutting political risk towards the subjectivation of everything and the “century of the self” | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Working from home]] | |||
*''[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]'' | *''[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]'' | ||
*Closely related to the [[technology paradox]] | *Closely related to the [[technology paradox]] | ||
*[[Policy]] | *[[Policy]] | ||
*[[Root cause analysis]] | *[[Root cause analysis]] | ||